Equipment If Nikon were to bring out a 24 and 35 1.4

^hey, now....don't misquote me

 

Oh boy another Vers vs. X brand pissing contest. YEA!

I think some perspective from a Nikon point of view is in order here. They came out with the 28mm f1.4 back in the early 90's and it was a pearl of a lens that nobody bought. Now they are selling used for $4000 but Nikon most likely lost money on that lens. Nikon has obviously been putting it's resources into zoom lenses and it is showing. You could make the argument that there wasn't a market back then for that sort of lens and now there is but I think Nikon's other prime range sales would have to be through the roof to send the signal to them that they need to expand, and I just don't think that message is being sent.

The f2 35mm is on my wish list too but seeing how I have the 17-35 f2.8 which is comparably sharp the only real attraction for me is to have a nice compact and lightweight option not any particular shot I couldn't have made with the other.

The thing I don't understand about Nikon is all the mid-range consumer level lenses that overlap. They are littered with too many choices in that department IMO.

18-35
16-85
18-200
18-55
18-105
18-70
55-200
24-85

I know they are spread over a wide range of age and cost but comon.

 

Yeah...because I started it Again, if you read carefully you would see it has nothing to do with brand wars...you only make it what you want it to be.

 

Saved for posterity:

 

The 35mm F2D is a gem of a lens. It's tiny, and has a nice minimum focusing distance to boot.

I realise this was taken with my D80, but it was shot wide open, you get the idea;



Oh and Johnny, you'll have to excuse all us sloppy prime users, that don't carry a speedlight everywhere we go. I could've have got this shot without the gear I've got. It's no shot of the year by any means, but hey, I got it at Iso 4000, instead of 6400 with my 24-70.



D700
35mm F2D at f2
1/13th
-2 EV

Primes DO have their place. At what cost though is all I'm saying. That answer to that will be different for everyone. Lets not get too heated here guys

 

You have to admit though, most people who justify the 1.4 lenses are shooting them in decent light (particularly the 85mm - It's a spectacular portrait lens).

Your example above is more of a testament to the D700 than the lens if you ask me if you consider that ISO 4000 wasn't an option on digital cameras just a few years ago and forget film when a lot of these amazing lenses where designed.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for Nikon to come out with a 24mm 1.4 (I'm perfectly happy with the 35mm f2). I have a fondness for primes as well, my 50mm 1.8 is one of my favorite lenses. I don't really have a use for a 24mm but I would love to have a 35mm and 135mm prime. That said, when I'm on a paid gig, 95% of my stuff is shot with a combo of 17-35 and 70-200. Nikon delivering a high-iso performer at full frame has helped my work more than niche optics.

 

Well said. Imagine, people were shooting great images with out climbing over ISO 800. So how does using a prime at OMG ISOs make you a thinking photographer again? Shoot that at ISO 800 and you would color me impressed. And honestly, how much were you paid to shoot that @ ISO 4000? My point. Yeah, primes are nice to play with at night and shoot slices of cake that are 1/2 out of focus. But, when you need to put money where you get the most value and utility, are out of the picture, save for a back up.

Again, it's not the primes I have issue with. People like them and that's ok. I still think the resources would be better spend on f/2s and f/2.8s of superior design and build then on lenses that people pop boners over because they are f/1.4. An AF-S 35/2 or 2.8 that was built like a 70-200/2.8 and optically out performed a 14-24/2.8 looks by far better to me then needing to stop down to get the image quality I paid for.

 

Each one of those stream has over 3000 images, and in each one I have seen 2 maybe 3 where I would say the aperture was a) wide open and b) made an absolute difference. so one in a thousand. wow.

 

Coming from someone who has never used one. Again you can talk about how they are useless all day long, I have actually used mine in the field and can tell you its not the gimmick you think it is. But hey, ignorance is bliss.

 

I can't begin tell you how wrong you are. Perhaps you should pick up an exif viewer.

 

Most people I know who shoot fast primes use them mostly in low light (mostly event photogs). As for his example being a testament to the body and not the lens, why is that? You make it seem as if aperture has no play in that situation when I'd say it would account for a better part of it, granted its only f/2...not f/1.4. Either way I'd take f/2 in that situation than f/2.8.

 

Ah, it's good to see such passionate conversation for a while

I made a few T-shirt models to celebrate this thread. Do you think you could pick a fight at a bar with these?





Drool, primes and cruelty are trademarked for Darkened!

 

Haha...it's not about which is 'better' in general, rather which is better for the shot or shooting condition at hand. Both primes and zooms have their place. They each excel in certain situations. They are all tools. Photography is about getting the shot--sometimes you have all the time in the world to light the scene properly or enough ambient to suffice, other times you have no control. For me its about making sure I get the shot, control or no control. Owning a tool like a fast aperture prime allows me to do that and work not only more efficiently but more effectively--regardless of how much I need to spend to get there. While I do not shoot events for a living atm, I do shoot them on occasion and plan to get more involved as soon as I have the time, until then I see the gear I've purchased and the gear I plan to purchase as an investment. This goes back to the OP. If Nikon is to ever release f/1.4, or faster, primes those looking to buy them, specifically those strapped for cash, should take into account what, exactly, these lenses would offer them and whether or not they are worth the cost.

 

I agree on this one. Each lens has its own purpose. Well, maybe I wouldn't spend over 1k€ on a prime, but I don't do this for a living. Perhaps then I would.

I really enjoy using my 30mm Sigma (not too sharp wide open) and my 50mm ZD macro (quite sharp even wide open). Especially in low light situations, where my 12-60mm (although nice) is quite useless. And with the E-3 I can't even go beyond ISO 1600, that'll really make you into a good photographer (or a pissed off one).

There is one prime that I'd like to get and it is the 25mm (50mm equivalent) Leica f:1.4. It's quite expensive, but not nearing the 1k€ limit yet. If I could have it for about 500-600€ I might consider...

Darkened

 

Just wanted to say I told ya so (Thats $2200/€2149.00/£1949.99 MSRP). My guess is we'll see a 35/1.4 and or perhaps a new 85/1.4 or f/1.2 coming soon as well, relatively speaking of course.

 

Yup, I won't be buying or even thinking about buying this 24 1.4. I will however definitely be buying the 16-35 f4 VR. It's RRP Vers, of course it's going to be priced high. I reckon the final price of the 24 1.4 will eventually drop to around £1500. Still high xD Just as well the 16-35 can't be priced as high as the 14-24 xD

 

Well, I'm not sure how Nikon's MSRP translates to retail prices, but I do know that Canon's MSRP generally carries over for at least a few months after the lens becomes available, afterwords dropping a small percentage. I still think the 24/1.4 will retain its shelf value very well, even after a year of availability. TBH I don't see this lens dropping below $1900 or perhaps even 2K within its first year--This of course depends on many variables. IIRC the 24-70 was announced at $1700USD which then actually increased to $1800 and since has only dropped ~$50, which is ~$50 more than its initial cost (correct me if I'm wrong). The 16-35VR is a positive sign for the DSLR market--VR in a UWA zoom...yeahhhh Still waiting for my 24-70/2.8IS.

 

TBH I'm not even interested in the 24 1.4. I really would like the 16-35 though. As far as Nikon RRP translates, the final price is around 20% less than what RRP is. I'm using the RRP of the 14-24 f2.8 as an example. RRP is £1635 and it's priced at £1295. RRP of the 16-35 is £1049. Even after subtracting 20%, I still think £825 seems a touch high for the 16-35. Who knows, if I found it for £800, maybe, maybe not.

If the RRP of the 16-35 stays as high as it is, seriously, if you've got the cash for a £1050 UWA lens, then you've probably got the money for a 14-24 priced £250 more. Aside from the fact that the new lens can take filters, and has VR/IS, I think it's a no brainer for someone who doesn't care about filter use. What you reckon?

 

Well, just to reiterate what I posted before, look at the current price of the 24-70 (which was released in 2007). If what I stated prior is accurate the lens actually increased in cost since its release. According to KR the 14-24 did exactly the same thing (released at $1800 MSRP -> $1825). These are three year old lenses which both increased in price since their release. IMO I'd think the 24/1.4 AND the 16-35 will share similar fates. The one turn off about the 14-24 is it's protruding front element, which prohibits the use of screw on filters BUT if Nikon's MTF's are accurate the 14-24 performs noticeably better. Still, it looks to be a pretty promising lens, and as I said the fact they implemented a VR system in it is a good sign for the entire DSLR market.

 

Time to get the T-shirt maybe?

Darkened